Context: In November 2023, China’s Chongqing First Intermediate People’s Court handed down a decision in Nokia v Oppo setting the rates that the Chinese manufacturer had to pay worldwide for using Nokia’s patents related to 2G, 3G, 4G and 5G “smart terminal products”, such as mobile phones. The European Union sent China an official request for it to supply the court’s judgment under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), alleging that the ruling affected the EU’s rights under the agreement. A couple of months later the companies settled their dispute by signing a cross-licensing deal.
背景：2023年11月，中国重庆市第一中级人民法院对“诺基亚诉OPPO”一案作出判决，确定了这家中国制造商在全球范围内使用诺基亚与2G、3G、4G和5G“智能终端产品”（如手机）相关专利所需支付的费率。欧盟依据世界贸易组织（WTO）《与贸易有关的知识产权协定》（TRIPS），向中国发出正式请求，要求中国提供该法院判决，声称该裁决影响了欧盟在该协定下的权益。几个月后，两家公司通过签署交叉许可协议解决了纠纷。
What’s new: The EC has today announced that it is targeting China in a new dispute settlement consultation at the WTO, aiming to “remove unfair and illegal trade practices” (January 20, 2025 European Commission press release). The EC has alleged that China has empowered its courts to set binding worldwide royalty rates for EU standard-essential patents (SEPs), without the consent of their patent owners. This is giving Chinese manufacturers cheaper access to those European technologies unfairly, it alleged. China “attempted to force EU companies to give Chinese manufacturers cheaper access to that European technology”, and “unduly interfere” with the competence of EU courts for European patent issues, the EC has stated.
最新消息：欧盟委员会（EC）今日宣布（2025年1月20日欧盟委员会新闻稿），其在WTO发起一项新的争端解决磋商，矛头指向中国，旨在“消除不公平和非法的贸易行为”。欧盟委员会声称，中国授权其法院在未经专利所有者同意的情况下，为欧盟的标准必要专利 (SEP)设定具有全球约束力的许可费率。欧盟委员会指出，这让中国制造商得以不公平地以更低成本获取欧洲技术。欧盟委员会还表示，中国“试图迫使欧盟企业让中国制造商以更低成本获取欧洲技术”，并“不当干涉”欧盟法院对欧洲专利问题的管辖权。
Direct impact: This consultation request is the first step in WTO dispute settlement proceedings. If this does not lead to a satisfactory solution within 60 days, the EU can move towards the litigation phase and request that the WTO set up a panel to rule on the matter.
直接影响：这一磋商请求是WTO争端解决程序的第一步。如果在60天内未能达成令人满意的解决方案，欧盟可以进入诉讼阶段，并要求WTO成立一个专家组对此事进行裁决。
Wider ramifications: Chinese courts are not the only ones that have assumed jurisdiction over global FRAND rates in the past. In the EU, the Unified Patent Court and German national courts, for example, have done this by requiring implementers to take global portfolio licenses, to avoid the risk of being enjoined in the respective European jurisdiction.
更广泛的影响：过去并非只有中国法院对全球FRAND费率行使管辖权。例如在欧盟，统一专利法院和德国国内法院就通过要求实施者获取全球专利组合许可来做到这一点，以避免在各自欧洲司法管辖区被下达禁令的风险。
请求文件内容请点击“阅读原文”获取。
“In accordance with China’s law, a legally effective decision determining such conditions is binding on both parties and is enforceable in China including with respect to the non-Chinese SEPs,” it reads. This measure curtails the ability of the SEP owners and implementers to enforce their rights and ensure the respect of obligations with respect to non-Chinese SEPs in the courts of the jurisdictions where the non-Chinese patents were granted, it alleges.The legal provision also diminishes the power of the courts of the jurisdictions where the non-Chinese patents were granted, it adds.
文件中写道：“根据中国法律，确定此类条件的具有法律效力的裁决对双方均具有约束力，并且在中国具有可执行性，包括涉及非中国SEP时。”欧盟方面宣称，这一举措限制了SEP所有者和实施者在非中国专利授予地的司法管辖区法院行使其权利，并确保有关非中国SEP的义务得到履行的能力。它还补充称，该法律规定也削弱了非中国专利授予地司法管辖区法院的权力。
The EC’s complaint goes on to allege that China’s practices are inconsistent with the country’s obligations under several parts of the TRIPS agreement. In particular:
-
It restricts patentees from starting or continuing proceedings before the courts in other WTO member countries to decide on questions relating to products covered by patents issued outside China;
-
It also restricts a non-Chinese SEP owner from freely negotiating and agreeing on FRAND contractual licence terms for the use of the SEP within the territory of the WTO member that has granted the patent, among other things.
欧盟委员会的投诉还声称，中国的做法不符合中国在TRIPS协议多个部分下应承担的义务。具体而言：
①这限制了专利权人在其他WTO成员国的法院启动或继续进行诉讼，以裁决与中国境外所授予专利涵盖产品相关的问题；
②此外，它还限制了非中国SEP的所有者，使其无法就该专利在授予该专利的WTO成员境内使用SEP的FRAND合同许可条款进行自由协商并达成一致等。
In a statement today the EC noted that China had not negotiated any satisfactory solutions so the EU was compelled to initiate the WTO dispute settlement procedure, “with the aim to ensure that its high-tech industries–notably in the telecoms sector–can effectively exercise their patent rights and protect their investments in innovation.”
欧盟委员会今日在一份声明中指出，由于未能通过协商与中国达成任何令人满意的解决方案，欧盟不得不启动WTO争端解决程序，“旨在确保其高科技产业，尤其是电信领域，能够有效行使专利权，并保护其在创新领域的投资。”
Commenting on the new proceedings today, Maroš Šefčovič, Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security; Interinstitutional Relations and Transparency said:
“The EU’s vibrant high-tech industries must be allowed to compete fairly and on a level playing field. Where this is not the case, the Commission takes decisive action to protect their rights. R&D is an engine for innovation that ensures EU leadership in developing future technologies, and it needs to be properly rewarded. We challenge these unfair trading practices at the World Trade Organization.”
负责贸易与经济安全、机构间关系及透明度的欧盟委员马罗什·谢夫乔维奇，就今日发起的新诉讼程序发表评论称：
“充满活力的欧盟高科技产业必须被允许在公平且平等的竞争环境中开展业务。若情况并非如此，欧盟委员会将采取果断行动来保护它们的权益。研发（R&D）是创新的引擎，它确保欧盟在未来技术发展中占据领先地位，而研发成果需要得到合理回报。我们在WTO对这些不公平贸易行为提出挑战。”
However, Chinese courts were not the first to set global rates in patent disputes.Last November, the Mannheim LD handed down a judgment in Panasonic v Oppo (which the two companies settled prior to this) according to which Panasonic would be allowed to enforce an injunction against Oppo in several UPC member states over a 4G SEP . Meanwhile, last August, the Munich I Regional Court’s Seventh Civil Chamber ordered an injunction based on a royalty demand for a global patent portfolio.
然而，中国法院并非首个在专利纠纷中设定全球费率的。去年11月，曼海姆地方法院对“松下诉OPPO案”作出判决（两公司在此之前已达成和解），依据该判决，松下可就一项4G SEP在多个统一专利法院（UPC）成员国对OPPO实施禁令。与此同时，去年8月，慕尼黑第一地区法院第七民事法庭基于对全球专利组合的许可费要求下达了禁令。
This case does not mark the first time the EC has targeted China in WTO proceedings concerning EU patentees’ rights. In February 2022, the EC alleged China was restricting EU companies from going to a foreign court to protect and use their patents (EC case summary). It claimed that Chinese anti-suit injunctions restrained high-tech patent holders by fining or sanctioning them if they sought to enforce their IP through a non-Chinese court. That case is still pending – and a report by the dedicated WTO panel is expected to be issued in Q1 2025.
这并非欧盟委员会首次在WTO相关程序中，就欧盟专利权人权利问题将矛头指向中国。2022年2月，欧盟委员会宣称中国限制欧盟企业通过外国法院来保护和使用其专利（欧盟委员会案件摘要）。它声称，中国的禁诉令对高科技专利持有者构成限制，若他们试图通过非中国法院来执行其知识产权，就会被处以罚款或制裁。该案件仍在审理中，WTO专门小组预计将在2025年第一季度发布相关报告。